13/00344/HYBRID Springfield Farm, Ambrosden

Springfield Farm, Ambrosden 13/00344/HYBRID

Ward: Ambrosden and Chesterton District Councillor: Cllr Andrew Fulljames

Case Officer: Rebecca Horley Recommendation: Approval

Applicant: Archstone Land Ltd & Bloor Homes c/o agent

Application Description: Full planning permission for demolition of the existing buildings and development of 90 new homes, new vehicular accesses, public and private open space with car and cycle parking, landscaping and associated servicing. Outline planning permission for community building with all matters reserved with associated car and cycle parking and landscaping (all matters reserved except points of access)

Committee Referral: Major - Departure from Policy

1. Site Description, Background and Proposed Development

1.1 This 7.94 ha site is located on land at Springfield Farm, adjacent to the south eastern edge of Ambrosden, a category 1 village. The site comprises a farmhouse, associated agricultural buildings and farm land. The northern boundary of the site follows the road to Blackthorn (Blackthorn Road), opposite Five Acres Primary School. The Ploughley Road forms the western boundary and the irregular shaped southeastern boundary is largely dictated by the requirement to avoid the areas of high risk flood.

1.2 The proposal is presented as a single ‘hybrid’ application (i.e. part full and part outline). The land reserved for the outline element is intended for community use, whether it should be a sports pavilion or other multifunctional building. Details of this would be submitted at a later date as a reserve matters application. Full planning permission is being sought for the 90 dwellings, new access points off the Ploughley road and Blackthorn Road; a centrally located Local Equipped Area of Play (LEAP) by the three ways junction with a sports field beyond. The layout also shows an area for allotments towards the south of the site as part of the public open space. A summary table of the house types is provided below and includes for 35% affordable housing

Affordable Houses

Market Houses Shared Total Rented Ownership One Bed Flat 4 4

Two Bed Houses 7 9 16

Three Bed Houses 10 9 2 21

Four Bed Houses 40 1 41

Five Bed Houses 8 8

Total 58 32 90

1.3 The site is not constrained by any historical features or within a Conservation Area but noted as being of some value ecologically. The high risk flood zone areas are noted and a small part of the site is potentially contaminated land. A public footpath runs from the north eastern corner of the site directly east towards Blackthorn but does not cross the site.

2. Application Publicity

2.1 The application has been advertised by way of neighbour letter, site notice and press notice. The final date for comment was 14 th May 2013. At the time of writing 3 letters/emails have been received raising objections on the following grounds:

Material planning considerations § Flooding – this is serious all year round and development here will lead to flooding elsewhere § Inadequate drainage § Inadequate sewerage system § Highway safety – additional access will increase the risk of accidents on a bus route § There are better alternative sites in the village § Loss of a relatively recent farm and holding § The public amenities offered are not needed

Non-material considerations § the flooding will affect our insurance premiums

One letter has been received from the County Council Property and Facilities seeking to ensure that construction and permanent access are sited to minimise the risk of accidents and traffic conflicts with the vehicular access to the Children’s Centre and that footpaths crossing the Blackthorn Road should facilitate safe access.

3. Consultations

3.1 Ambrosden Parish Council: Holding objection to this application subject to the holding of a public debate on this application at the Annual Parish Meeting on the 16 th May and resolution of the issues detailed below.

Due to significant change and enlargement of the village that will be created by this application, and in accordance with the recent training given by Cherwell District Council and OALC, (Roles and Responsibilities for Councillors), because the District Council no longer notifies neighbours of applications, the Parish Council is holding an open public meeting on the application. Due to the

timing of the notification of the application, and the limited financial resources of this small Parish Council, residents of the village are being notified of this application in the April edition of the Parish News. The public meeting will be held as part of the Annual Parish Meeting on the 16 th May at 8pm. Final comments will be forwarded to you after this meeting has taken place.

We would request notification of the date and time of the Planning Committee, so that the Parish Council can be represented.

The Parish Council have been advised there is no conflict of interest regarding the Chair's work as an architect at a firm that was once used by Bloor Homes. Neither the Chair nor his staff had any contact with Bloor Homes or anyone that works for them, outside of this application.

The application includes work outside the red lined application area, including amendments to the school boundaries and the creation of a new pedestrian access to the Five Acres School. Has the school been notified of this application and proposals, as the school governors do not appear to be aware of these proposals?

Comments 1. Principle. The Parish Council is broadly supportive of this application, which is the result of a long period of community engagement and dialogue with the Parish Council and other stakeholders, and the applicant is to be congratulated in their efforts to-date.

The Parish Council reluctantly consider that if the Parish is forced to have additional dwellings to meet housing need, that the Springfield Farm site is the most suitable location for additional housing development, and rounds off the settlement with less impact on the approach to the village then any other site at the edge of the village.

The development proposals will provide a number of community benefits and facilities that the village is lacking, including allotments, open space, community woodland. Conversely other proposed developments in the Parish such as Graven Hill, significantly add to pressures on Ambrosden, such as surface water issues, significant increases in traffic and pollution without providing any resources to the existing community.

Parishioners are particularly excited by the new Community Building/ Sports Pavilion which the developers have promised to fund and are included in outline in this application.

2. Detailed Comments Highways & Traffic Calming The traffic calming is welcomed along Plougley Road where speed surveys produced by the County Council have highlighted significant speeding problems. The Parish Council recently followed the advice of OCC Highways and has removed the white lines from the centreline of carriage way, as part of a traffic calming program.

We believe the current highways plan to reinstate the white lines to the centre of the road is detrimental to highways safety and object to the detail of the proposals in their current form. The detail of the proposed bus stops has not been provided – we query their requirement and maintenance issues. The bus stops should be linked to the real time information network.

Foul Drainage There is a significant issue with foul drainage inundation of dwellings on the western end of Merton Road, and the application is not provided with clear proposals for the foul drainage, and should not be approved until this is provided. We refer you to the Thames Water comments on permission 10/01219/OUT, where they noted the inability of the drainage system to accommodate additional dwellings and requested a Grampian condition. Foul Drainage issues would be avoided if a new foul drainage route is created towards Arncott, rather than connecting into the existing system on Merton road.

Allotments. The allotments are considered a great resource, but detail is lacking in a) How they will be secured by suitable fencing and appropriate landscaping. b) Conformation of the provision of water supplies c) Conformation that the allotments will be set out, and created. d) Conformation of financial contribution towards maintenance and setting up of management committee.

Community Building The Parish Council was verbally informed that a sports pavilion/ community building will be constructed as part of the s106 agreement.

Affordable Housing ORCC completed published a Housing Needs survey for Ambrosden in March 2013, prior to submission of this application. This survey generated the following need in the village. 5 x 1 bed flat 1 x 2 bed bungalow/ GF Flat 3 x 2 bed house 11 x 3 bed house 2 x 3-4 bed house 2 x 4 bed house

The application has an under provision of 3 bed dwellings to meet the need of the village, but provides 8 more affordable dwellings than the existing demand in the village. We note that part of the site is in Blackthorn and there maybe a small demand from Blackthorn

Scheme Design Materials - Double interlocking tiles are proposed on the materials schedule. These are a very cheap product with an appearance that does not match any dwellings in the village – standard plain tiles should be used.

Finishes – house types 401, 405, 406, 419, 423, all have incongruous Tudor boarding/ cladding timber details to the popup roof elements/ gables. This is a suburban detail completely inappropriate for a rural village setting – the timber detailing should be omitted to give a simple rural feel. The proportions and detailing of house type 351 are poor and create a very ugly dwelling which manages to make the new houses at Briar Furlong look attractive in comparison. House type 351 could be significantly improved, by adding a arch lintel above the attic window and continuing the quoining detail to along the roof slope to the ridge. Affordable Housing – some of the affordable house types comply with Lifetime Homes July 2010. The bedrooms of the following house types do not demonstrate compliance with the latest regulations: Flat- 01; Flat-02; 3B5P(SO)-01, 1B-Bung-01, 3B6P(R) 01/02, 2B4P(SO)- 01. Parking – due to existing parking issues in the village, particularly modern developments in Briar Furlong and Chapel Drive where the garages are not used to accommodate vehicles, the Parish Council made strong representations to the developers during consultations to ensure at least 200% parking per dwelling excluding garages. We suggested carports, could replace garages in some locations. We consider the parking should be revisited for units, 13, 14, 29, 37 as these houses are all located close to turning heads, the main access to Blackthorn Road, and only have one parking space each, plus garage. On road parking adjacent to these dwellings will lead to traffic manoeuvring issues.

Financial Contributions/Onsite provision . Dog waste bins – Ambrosden Parish Council do not have a budget to pay for the cost of dog waste bins, but recommend the installation of 4 bins, which will then be added to our Parish Dog waste collection list. a) adjacent LAP b) Opposite P63/ P40 c) Opposite P76 d) Opposite P84

Waste bins – Ambrosden Parish Council do not have a budget to pay for the cost of waste bins. We require cast iron bins matching those already installed in the village. These will then be added to our street cleaning route. We recommend the installation of 6 bins. e) adjacent LAP f) Opposite P66 g) Adjacent each bus stop on Ploughley Road h) Opposite P88 i) Opposite P84

3.2 Blackthorn Parish Council: Comments awaited

Cherwell District Council Consultees

3.3 Planning Policy Officer: No objection in principle.

The site lies within an area of countryside and is not allocated for development by either the saved policies of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan 1996 or those of the Non-Statutory Cherwell Local Plan 2011.

The NPPF states that planning should recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside (para' 17). It states (para' 49) that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development and that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.

In considering the NPPF’s requirements, the main policy issues are: § Housing Land Supply § The acceptability of releasing land in this location ahead of completion of the Local Plan

Housing Land Supply Paragraph 47 in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires Local Planning Authorities to identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements, with an additional buffer of 5% to ensure choice and competition in the market for land (or 20% where there has been persistent under delivery).

From the 2012 Annual Monitoring Report, the District presently has a 4.3 year supply (with 5% buffer) of deliverable housing land for the period 2013-18 and a 3.8 year supply with a 20% buffer. The proposed development, if shown to be deliverable, could contribute and improve the District’s housing land supply position.

The site has been included and assessed as a potential site within the final draft 2013 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA), with the site reference AM014, should additional land outside the built up area of Ambrosden be required and subject to careful consideration of constraints including ecological impact, flood issues, landscape issues and integration with the village. The SHLAA considers the site to have an indicative capacity of about 25 dwellings as a 'sensible starting point'. There should therefore be careful consideration of the number of dwellings that the site could reasonably accommodate in its context. Only one other potentially suitable and available site (AM022) is identified, again outside built-up limits and for about 10 homes.

Acceptability of Releasing Land in this Location The NPPF states (paragraphs 150 & 151) that Local Plans are the key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the vision and aspirations of local communities, that they must be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development and should be consistent with the principles and policies set out in the NPPF.

The Proposed Submission Local Plan incorporating Proposed Changes (PSLP March 2013) carries limited weight as the Plan is not complete and currently the subject of further consultation. However, it includes a village categorisation (Policy Villages 1) and a proposed distribution for new development (of 10 or more homes) for rural areas (Policy Villages 2).

Ambrosden is one of the district's most sustainable villages. Its range of services includes a post office, convenience store, MOD Community centre, hairdresser, motor service garage, public house and village hall. It is a category 1 village in both the adopted Local Plan and the NSCLP 2011, and a category A village under Policy Villages 1 of the PSLP March 2013.

The PSLP March 2013 allows for a total of 3,902 dwellings to be provided outside of Banbury and Bicester from 2006-2031 (i.e. 156 dwellings per annum compared to the former requirement of the South East Plan of approximately 185 per annum). The PSLP allows for some redistribution to Bicester. Within this requirement, Policy Villages 2 provides for a total of 252 further homes between 2012 and 2031 across a group of 6 villages, including Ambrosden (the others being Adderbury, Chesterton, Deddington, Launton and Hook Norton). This requirement is in addition to extant permissions as at 31/3/12. However, since 31/3/12, three further sites in that group of villages have come forward: a further 28 homes (37 in total) at Stanton Engineering, Hook Norton (permitted on 8 March 2013), 40 homes at Yew Tree Farm, Launton (permitted on 11 February 2013) and 44 homes at The Green, Chesterton permitted on 21 February 2013. This lowers the total for the 6 villages to 131.

The PSLP March 2013 states, “... The precise number of homes to be allocated to an individual village will be set out in the Local Neighbourhoods Development Plan Document in the light of evidence such as the ...SHLAA. Sites will be allocated in either the Local Neighbourhoods DPD or in Neighbourhood Plans. In some cases, the approval of schemes will make it unnecessary to allocate sites. Regard will be had to the level of building that has already taken place in each village to avoid over development .”

In advance of the Local Neighbourhood Document (or a Neighbourhood Plan) it will be necessary to consider the district’s current housing supply situation, to be mindful of the amount of rural housing that has been allowed in particular locations and the likely impact of proposed developments on a case by case basis.

The district does not presently have a 5 year land supply. The development of 90 homes on the site exceeds that envisaged by Policy Villages 2 and the 'starting point' of the final draft SHLAA. However, although Ambrosden has delivered a significant level of housing in recent years (due mainly to allocations in the Non-Statutory Cherwell Local Plan), it has not experienced the high levels of growth experienced by Bloxham and Yarnton. Ambrosden Parish had 89 recorded housing completions from 2001 to 2012, including 70 within the Proposed Submission Plan period 2006 – 2012. The latter includes 24 completions on land adjoining Laburnum Close and 40 dwellings to the West of West Hawthorn (both identified in the Non-Statutory Local Plan). The level of development (2006-2012) is comparable to Adderbury (87 homes) but not as high as Bloxham (184) and Yarnton (201). It should be noted, however, that Ambrosden is smaller in population terms than these other villages.

The grant of permission for 90 homes at Ambrosden would significantly reduce the requirements of Policy Villages 2. However, having regard to the current housing land supply position, the fact that homes are being provided in some of the other villages, the level of development at Ambrosden in recent years, and

the fact that Ambrosden is one of the District’s most sustainable villages, it considered reasonable to consider some additional development at the village.

There is therefore no policy objection in principle. However, there should be careful consideration as to whether the proposed number of dwellings could be satisfactorily accommodated having regard to detailed issues. . 3.4 Urban Design Officer: No objection. Time has not allowed for a specific comment on this aspect of the proposal but I have read the relevant paragraphs drafted for this report and the conclusions drawn are appropriate.

3.5 Housing Officer: No objection. The submitted application the applicant has considered and responded to all the following points and has produced an application which is consistent with these requirements.

The affordable housing mix should represent a 70/30 split between Affordable Rent and Shared Ownership, and be delivered in clusters to ensure integration of the affordable housing with the private accommodation.

The affordable units should be built to a minimum of Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 and 50% of the units to meet Lifetime Homes Standards.

The unit breakdown should be as follows:

Rent Shared Ownership 4x1b2pF 9x2b4pH 5x2b4pH 2x3b5pH 6x3b5pH 3x3b6pH 1x4b7pH 2x2b2pB

The affordable housing units should be transferred to one of CDC’s preferred RP partners.

3.6 Landscape Officer: The footpaths close to this site have been walked. The site is located in a low lying area on the periphery of Ambrosden. There will be some visibility of the site when developed, generally the closer to the site the greater this will be. The zone of visual influence is relatively restricted due to topography. The further you are from the site the greater number of intervening hedges and lower resulting impact. Viewpoint 1: Moderate impact due to proximity to road, actual impact reduced slightly due to green space adjacent to actual junction Vp 2: Moderate to low impact of dwellings close to road and low hedges. Vp 3: Relatively low impact due to distance and intervening hedges Vp 4: Moderate impact

The current edge of Ambrosden is screened by a combination of former field hedges that have been allowed to grow and tree planting. This currently gives

filtered views of the development. There is the potential for this approach to be used to screen the proposed development.

I am disappointed with a number of aspects of this application.

1. There doesn't seem to be any connection between the findings of the landscape assessment and the design proposals. The workings out have not been shown. 2. The existing vegetation is neither indicated on the layout plan nor is there any suggestion about how it might be utilised to enhance the proposal. Existing vegetation must be shown as we need to see how it will contribute to the combined landscape proposal. There are boundary hedges which could be allowed to grow to provide screening and trees which can be combined with new planting. I would particularly like to see increased planting in front of properties which front onto open countryside. 3. The tree planting proposed is inadequate. There are very few trees proposed which don't seem to follow any planting strategy. There is plenty of space to have some large trees and this should be exploited. 4. I think that there will be pedestrian desire lines which are not shown as footpaths. These lead up to the LEAP from the sports common and round to the school. 5. Local Areas of Plan (LAPs): One LAP is totally inadequate. This was discussed at the pre-app meeting that I attended. LAP's need to be within 100m or 1 minutes walk of each dwelling. Although there can be a little flexibility, only one LAP sited on the periphery is not sufficient. The LEAP is within 400m so the location is acceptable.

Overall, there is plenty of open space which is pleasing and further opportunities to exploit this. 3.7 Arboricultural Officer: No objection subject to conditions. The accompanying arboricultural report and Impact Assessment (AIA) is satisfactory is content and presents an accurate assessment of the trees on site along with a good evaluation of the trees retention values which I would concur with. The protection of the trees proposed for retention will be addressed through an arboricultural method statement (AMS) which may be conditioned should consent for the development be granted.

The layout of the site along with the amount of allocated open space allows for a significant landscaping / planting scheme with an increase in tree quantities to that shown on drawing PL-03 particularly the open space to the north-west corner; the open space area opposite plots 61 – 65, 71, 89 and 90 parallel with the two access roads; to the eastern boundary adjacent to the proposed footpath and sports common and finally an increase in boundary/companion tree planting for the proposed orchard area (particularly to the eastern and south-eastern aspect of the orchard boundaries.

In order to avoid the need for structured cell planting pits it may also be advisable to relocate any proposed tree planting from proposed hard surface areas, such as visitor parking bays, to an approximate distance of 2.0m further away on the turfed areas.

3.8 Biodiversity & Countryside Officer : No objection

Blackthorn Footpath No 7 meets the Blackthorn Road close to the northernmost corner of the site, just east of the school, but will not be affected by the proposed development.

The Design and Access Statement makes reference to another public footpath outside the site to the west (page 48) but this is not a public right of way. It would be advisable to check the status of this "track" both in terms of ownership and management.

3.9 Ecology Officer: No objection, subject to conditions. This submitted ecological appraisal is sufficient in scope and depth at this stage. Some update surveys may be required at a later date e.g. for badgers. In general the recommendations within Section 4 of the report are appropriate both as mitigation, minimising impacts and for potential enhancements for biodiversity on site. These recommendations should be adhered to.

With regard to bats, the only EPS found on site, the outline mitigation within the appraisal is suitable and follows pre-application discussions with myself and the County Council previously and I believe they are likely to obtain a licence from Natural England for demolition of the relevant buildings and subsequent loss of roosts. Monitoring of the replacement roost should be carried out for three years following placement to record take up. I would like to see a lighting schedule at some point to ensure that lighting is appropriate in the vicinity of the bat roosts and features and a plan of where the relevant bat features will be sited.

I am slightly confused by the plans within the Design and Access Statement some of which show the large green space to the East as 'open space' with a sports common adjacent to the LEAP and others show this large space as the sports common. Its ultimate use is important in terms of achieving maximum benefit for wildlife on site which we should be looking for in line with the NPPF and our commitments to further the conservation of biodiversity. An informal open space could contain different management regimes to benefit wildlife such as areas where mowing is delayed or the inclusion of log piles/brash for other species. This may be less appropriate on a sports common. The management of the orchard area, pond and adjacent grassland will be important in achieving value for wildlife and further details on this will be needed for comment at some point.

In addition apart from the mitigation required for the bat species on site there is little enhancement for biodiversity proposed within the built environment and this is easily included. For example there are records of House sparrows in the vicinity and therefore I would like to see the inclusion of house sparrow terraces on some of the houses and bird boxes for other species could be included on the community building. Some nesting/roosting opportunity for Little Owls should be included in a full biodiversity enhancement plan. It is noted that the site falls within the Ray Conservation Target Area which is not picked up in the ecological reports. I am not sure if any features could be included within the development which may be especially relevant or sympathetic to the aims of this CTA. It could be that the proposed use of the land does not allow much scope for anything above what I have already suggested. I would suggest therefore, in case we are missing an obvious

opportunity, that contact be made with BBOWT who is the lead person for this CTA in case he has any valuable suggestions.

3.10 Recycling and Waste Manager: No objections subject to appropriate S106 contribution of £67.50 per property. The developer is advised to take into account the Waste and Recycling guidance which can be found on the CDC website.

3.11 Safer Communities Urban & Rural (Community Development) and Recreation & Health Improvement: No objections, subject to S106 requirements, as follows: If the hall responsibility were to be transferred to CDC as a multifunctional community building a commuted sum would have to be agreed for the maintenance of the building for a 15 year period. It is difficult to confirm this figure without knowing the size and layout of the proposed community building. If the above building was not provided a contribution to the existing community building in the village would be sought (as below).

Contributions No of Contribution Property /Dwelling Units 2012 2012 1 Bed 4 £97.55 £390.19 2 Bed 16 £141.00 £2,255.92 3 Bed 21 £219.49 £4,609.26 4 Bed 49 £301.80 £14,788.38 5 Bed 0 £301.80 £0.00

Contribution 90 £22,043.76

Community development contribution to fund a development officer 10 hours a week over a 12 month period. This officer would establish a management committee and activities for the proposed multifunctional community building. Salary at a CDC pay grade 7a, plus on costs at 26% (example sum based on April 2013 pro rata salary of £27,396 = £10,958 )

However, if the community building were not to be multifunctional and a contribution to the existing community facilities in the village was given, this officer post could be waived.

A Community events & projects contribution of £5,000 is also required. A condition to provide an approved public art scheme that will provide a focal point within the development and assist in conserving the distinctiveness of the area in either heritage or environmental terms

3.12 Recreation & Health Improvement Manager (Public Art): No objection subject to a condition to provide an approved public art scheme that will provide a focal point within the development and assist in conserving the distinctiveness of the area in either heritage or environmental terms. A contribution is required as outlined above.

3.13 Anti-Social Behaviour Manager : No objections or observations

Oxfordshire County Council Consultees

3.14 Highways Liaison Officer: No objection subject to the recommended amendments being made and required standards being met, a list of recommended planning conditions, informatives and legal agreements can be finalised.

Introduction Although not specifically referred to in the description, the application also proposes new highway works, including relocation of speed limits, new footways, pedestrian crossing islands, highway signage and associated works. Comments on the proposed highway works are included below in ‘Off-site highway works’. The red-line application area does not include the site’s proposed vehicular accesses and the highway works proposed as part of the development.

Access The application proposes a new vehicular access onto Blackthorn Road to serve 70 dwellings and a second vehicular access onto Ploughley Road to serve 20 dwellings, the allotments and future community building. Visibility splays for these accesses are proposed to be 2.5m x 43m, as demonstrated on Clarke Bond drawings 120/C and 122/B in the Transport Assessment. New pedestrian accesses to the public highway are also proposed. All accesses must be constructed to OCC specification (including culverting of any ditches) and will require a separate Section 278 Agreement. (Condition, informative) The existing site access onto Blackthorn Road must be permanently closed off in accordance with details to be submitted for consideration and approval, and will require separate OCC consent. (Condition, informative)

Parking The application form states that 257 car parking spaces will be provided on site. 1-bed units will be allocated 1 parking space each and other residential units will be allocated at least 2 parking spaces each. Plans show 246 allocated parking spaces (comprising a mixture of garages and hard-standing) and 13 visitor parking bays. In addition, 22 parking spaces are proposed for the allotments. Parking provision for the community building will need to be addressed in due course when the detailed/ reserved matters application for this part of the site is submitted, however the Transport Assessment identifies the potential for up to 20 parking spaces on this part of the site. OCC’s Residential Car Parking Standards recommend the provision of 176 allocated and 44 unallocated/visitor parking spaces. It is clear that the overall number of residential parking spaces to be provided is acceptable, although a higher proportion of unallocated/visitor spaces would be recommended. There are some concerns with the proposed dimensions and layout of some of the proposed car parking spaces as detailed in the ‘Estate Layout’ section below, and some revisions are required to the parking spaces. The agreed car parking must be constructed, laid out, drained and maintained to OCC specification and retained free from any obstruction to such use. (Condition)

Cycle Parking Cycle parking is proposed to be provided in garages, or in rear gardens. The plan should indicate that garages are of sufficient size to accommodate cycle parking – i.e. internal dimensions of 3m x 6m for single garages and 6m x 6m for double garages. Details of the secure cycle parking for each property not served by an adequate garage should also be shown. (Condition) It is advisable to provide some visitor cycle parking for the development. ‘Sheffield’ type cycle stands are recommended and all cycle parking should be secure, conveniently located and covered. (Condition)

Estate Layout The application proposes to provide new public roads and footways within the site. These must be constructed to OCC specification and will require a Section 38 Agreement including full engineering drawings of the internal roadway/footway layouts to appropriate scales and standard construction detail drawings (contact: Road.Agreements@oxfordshire.gov.uk ). Plan number PL-05 illustrates the proposed areas for adoption. This plan will need to be amended to include the emergency link between the two residential elements of the proposed estate (which must be constructed to a standard that can accommodate emergency vehicles) and the three main proposed footpath links to Blackthorn Road and Ploughley Road. A condition or informative is suggested. Some of the proposed residential parking comprises tandem parking layout, including three parking spaces in tandem. This is not recommended as it is inconvenient in practice and can lead to vehicles being parked on streets or footways. Dimensions of parking bays do not meet the necessary standards, and a revised parking layout is required. Parking spaces must be no less than 2.5m x 5m each. Wider dimensions are required where a parking bay is constrained on one or both sides. Additionally, parking spaces in front of garages must be 6m in length to allow for a garage door opening. Plots where parked vehicles are likely to obstruct footways or landscaped areas include plots 16-18, 22, 25-28, 33, 35, 37, 45, 47, 49 and 67-70. Lastly, no provision appears to have been made for disabled parking spaces and is required. A revised layout plan is advised. Footways of 2m width are proposed within the development. Main estate access roads appear to be at least 5m in width, with private driveways 3.5m in width. There is concern that the width of private driveways will not permit two- way passing of vehicles, and these shared driveways should be increased to 4.1m in width as a minimum. This is particularly important alongside plots 45-52 where pedestrians and cyclists are also expected to use this shared surface. A revised layout plan is advised. Internal visibility splays for parking spaces within the estate must be kept unobstructed to ensure that vehicles pulling out of spaces have sufficient visibility along the estate roads. Of concern is the parking area for Plot 7, where there is a risk of conflict between vehicles using these spaces and pedestrians using the new footway link to Blackthorn Road. Also, the footpath within the estate which crosses the site’s main access to Blackthorn Road will require the provision of suitable visibility splays at this key junction area. A revised layout plan is advised. It needs to be demonstrated that turning circles and swept paths for large servicing vehicles and pantechnicons can be accommodated within the proposed layout. The turning heads indicated within the development appear to

be smaller than recommended, which may lead to issues such as over-running of private drives and footways. A revised layout plan is advised.

Transport Assessment (TA) A Transport Assessment has been submitted and reviewed. The TA includes an assessment of the existing use of the site, the local highway network and infrastructure, public transport services, the proposed development and trip rates. The development is anticipated to generate 52-58 vehicle movements in the peak hour. A review of the local road collision history for the vicinity has been carried out and indicates 25 collisions on the local road network between January 2007 and June 2012. Five of these collisions occurred on Ploughley Road in the vicinity of the development, however were reportedly related to driver error/human factors rather than any deficiency of the highway network. Four road junctions have been assessed: A41/Ploughley Road, A41/B4011, Blackthorn Road/B4011 and Ploughley Road/Blackthorn Road. Of these, only the A41/Ploughley Road operates close to capacity in 2012 (base year) and demonstrates capacity issues in 2018 (RFC = 0.906) and 2018 + development (RFC = 0.918). I note that the PICADY parameters in Appendix C indicate that right turning traffic from A41 to Ploughley Road blocks traffic, which is not the case as a right turn lane exists. Presumably this would result in a worse forecast of junction capacity, and for consistency the PICADY analysis should be re-run to determine the actual base and forecast junction performance. Additional information is required. Whilst traffic count surveys have been carried out for the agreed study area, no vehicle speed surveys have been carried out. OCC speed surveys for Ploughley Road indicate that there is a speeding issue on this road, and the application seeks to address this via new traffic calming infrastructure. See comments below in ‘Off-site highway works’.

Travel Plan A Travel Plan has been produced, which broadly meets the necessary standards. A commitment has been made to recruit a Travel Plan Coordinator (TPC) upon opening of the sales office onsite, and the responsibilities of the TPC have been outlined. A commitment is made to survey travel modes of residents within 6 months of first occupation and share the results with OCC within 3 months of the survey date. A monitoring report will also be prepared and shared with OCC to discuss progress and the way forward. It will be important to ensure that the Travel Plan includes all site users, including allotments and community building, and also works with other travel plan organisations in the neighbourhood (e.g. Five Acres Primary and nursery Schools). It is recommended that this aspect be conditioned.

Developer Contributions There are aspirations to improve the Arncott-Bicester bus service, which currently runs through to Oxford, to two buses per hour (considered to be a credible frequency for travel to work etc). This is based on the County Council’s endorsed Premium Routes Policy and the wider plans for development in the Bicester area. This development should contribute £90,000 (index-linked) towards the cost of providing two buses per hour (and improved evening and Sunday service) on the S5 Arncott-Bicester route. This should form part of the planning obligation.

Other contributions towards County infrastructure and services (e.g. education, fire service, libraries) will be requested separately by OCC’s Developer Funding Team.

Off-site highway works The application proposes measures to slow traffic on Ploughley Road and improve accessibility between the development and the village. A new entrance gateway feature is proposed on Ploughley Road and the existing 30mph speed limits on Ploughley Road and Blackthorn Road are proposed to be extended as a result of the proposals. The highway works are described in the TA and shown on Clarkebond drawings 120/c and 122/B (see Appendix F of the TA). The highway works must be constructed to OCC specification and will require a separate public consultation exercise (re proposed relocation of speed limits) and a Section 278 Agreement (contact [email protected]). The Section 278 process will require the provision of detailed engineering drawings and technical audits, which should take into consideration the below points. These aspects should be conditioned or an informative. R The proposed pedestrian refuges are supported in principle subject to detailed design e.g. of tapers into the widened areas of carriageway to accommodate the refuges; bus stop provision, street lighting etc. R Given existing concerns about speeding along Ploughley Road it may be worth providing a ‘priority give-way’ village gateway feature at the relocated 30mph start. R There should be an assessment on the need for a pedestrian crossing (refuge or controlled crossing) across Blackthorn Road at the location of the new footway from the development to the school/ children’s centre. R The residual length of the 40mph limit on Blackthorn Road appears very short, and consideration should be given to extending the 40mph limit to the east to include the service access east of Allectus Avenue. R For the proposed pedestrian refuge by the garage entrance on Ploughley Road, it must be demonstrated that vehicles turning out of the garage can make the manoeuvre without conflict with the refuge island. R Site observations highlight a number of parked vehicles around the two garage accesses on Ploughley Road opposite the application site. These parked vehicles might compromise visibility and highway safety for pedestrians at the new crossing refuges. Measures should be introduced to prevent vehicles parking on the verge and restricting inter-visibility. R Existing bollards on the footway adjacent to the garage will need to be reviewed in line with the proposed Ploughley Road widening and the provision of the new bus shelter and pedestrian refuge, to ensure that adequate pedestrian width is available on the amended footway. R A dropped kerb is required at the end of the proposed new footway on Old Arncott Road where the road becomes ‘shared surface’. R The new footway on Old Arncott Road will require the relocation of the existing grit bin and highway signage currently on the verge. R The speed limit sign on Old Arncott Road will need amended to 30mph in line with the proposed extension of the speed limit on Ploughley Road. R Tactile paving and dropped kerbs are needed across the site’s vehicular access onto Ploughley Road. R The provision of tactile paving is required at the existing footway on Ploughley Road where it crossed Blackthorn Road.

R Tactile paving and dropped kerbs are recommended on Merton Road near the junction with Ploughley Road. R Street-lighting and highway signage details will need to be provided to OCC specification. R Existing highway signage at the proposed location of the pedestrian refuge nearest Merton Road will need to be relocated. The new footway link will need to comply with necessary gradients, as the current verge slopes at this point. R Street ‘de-cluttering’ principles will need to be taken into consideration for the proposed new street lighting column on Merton Road (north). There is an opportunity to combine existing signage with any new street lighting column. R Provision of a barrier or bollard may be required at the new pedestrian footpath link to Ploughley Road from the development, given the shared pedestrian/cycleway along Ploughley Road at this point. R The new footpath link into the school will need to be agreed with the school/OCC Property Team.

Construction Traffic A Construction Traffic Management Plan will be required for consideration and approval prior to commencement of works, to ensure minimum disruption to neighbouring properties/ damage to highway verges etc during the construction phase . It is recommended that this be conditioned.

3.15 Archaeology: No objection. An archaeological geophysical survey and trenched evaluation has been undertaken on the site which has shown that the majority of the site contains no archaeological features. A small number of linear features were recorded on the eastern side of the site, truncated by later ploughing and field drains. Two sherds of abraded Roman pottery were also recovered from these features. The evaluation report concluded that these features were probably field boundaries remote from any settlement.

3.16 Drainage Officer: No objection subject to condition/s. Surface water is proposed to be discharged via SUDS, soakaway, main sewer and existing watercourse. A full drainage strategy will need to be submitted for consideration and approval. Under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (which states that if more than 2 properties drain to a joint SUDs feature it will be adopted by the Lead Flood Authority), developers can be charged set fees for checking the SUDs design of their development, supervision of SUDs being installed and commuted sums for the future maintenance of the SUDs. It is recommended that this be a condition.

3.17 Developer Funding Team: Comments awaited relating to the likely Section 106 requirements for education, fire service, libraries and other matters.

Other Consultees

3.18 Environment Agency: No objection subject to the inclusion of a condition to ensure the Flood Risk Assessment recommendations are carried out as without the inclusion of this condition we consider the development to pose an unacceptable risk to the Environment.

3.19 Thames Water: No objections subject to conditions and informatives.

3.20 Thames Valley Police: No objection. I commend the applicants for proposing a design and layout that should help to prevent crime. And, I note that the Design and Access Statement has a specific section on ‘Safety & Security’. Unfortunately, although this section mentions some key principles of creating a safer environment, it does not give any real commitment to ensuring one is provided. Therefore, opportunities to design out crime and/or the fear of crime and to promote community safety remain. To ensure that these opportunities are not missed I request that the following (or a similarly worded) condition be placed upon any approval for this application: No development shall commence until details of the measures to be incorporated into the development to demonstrate how ‘Secured by Design (SBD)’ accreditation will be achieved have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, and shall not be occupied or used until the Council has acknowledged in writing that it has received written confirmation of SBD accreditation.

SBD is an Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) initiative which has a proven track record in assisting with the creation of safer places by providing guidance on Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), and by requiring a minimum set of standards on physical security measures. Details can be found at www.securedbydesign.com and further advice can be obtained by contacting Thames Valley Police’s Crime Prevention Design Team.

I feel that attachment of this condition would help the development to meet the requirements of: • The National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (Part 7, Sect 58; ‘Requiring good Design’ and Part 8, Sect 69; Promoting Healthy Communities’) where it is stated that development should create ‘Safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion’. • Supplementary Planning Guidance Document ‘Safer Places - The Planning System and Crime Prevention’ , ODPM 2004.

In addition, it would assist the authority in complying with its obligations under Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 in doing all it reasonably can in each of its functions to prevent crime and disorder in its area.

Assuming approval is given, and to assist the authority and the applicants in providing as safe a development as possible, and to aid the latter in achieving SBD accreditation, I make the following observations:

• The provision of defensible space to the front/side of plots is not clear on the plans and this will be an important factor in providing ownership (for some more than others; i.e. plots 41, 66, 71, 87 etc). I suggest that appropriate provision is made. • Although I applaud the inclusion of side windows in some plots and of dwellings that ‘turn the corner’, some parking spaces adjacent to dwellings

(i.e. 12 & 13, 56 & 57) are still not overlooked by side elevations and some corner plots (i.e. 24 & 61) only have views to/from one aspect. Windows of active rooms such as kitchens and living rooms should be provided wherever possible to enhance natural surveillance. • Post and wire fencing is shown at most back to back and side to side divisions of rear gardens. I would prefer to see a more substantial treatment on the back to back elements and for the first meter or two protruding from properties on the side to side aspects for privacy reasons. 1.5M close board fencing topped with 300mm of trellis is often useful in these situations as it provides a certain level of security whilst retaining an open structure that allows communication between neighbours. Also, garden boundary treatments abutting the public/semi-private realm are specified as 1.8M close board or 1.8M high walls. It would be of benefit if these were made harder to climb (again, trellis could be used here on the close board and perhaps rounded copings could top the walls rather than the proposed square ones)? • Some gates to rear gardens are not provided as close to the front building line as possible (i.e. plots 29 & 31 could be moved to the garage front line) and, these features should meet SBD specifications regarding locking as they are a common access point. And again, trellis topping would assistance in preventing climbing in to back gardens. • Also in relation to boundary treatments, I suggest that defensible space is provided for the flats at plots 25-28 to prevent casual intrusion around or close to the buildings and, that the parking for these plots (and plots 23 & 24) is enclosed with an appropriate treatment (perhaps railings) for the same reasons. • The knee rail proposed along the footpath from the LAP to the Sports Common should be of a design that discourages sitting so that nowhere along its length becomes a place where congregation can take place outside dwellings. This should help prevent anti social behaviour. • I suggest that some form of treatment is needed to prevent vehicular access to the green spaces within the development. Bollards are shown (presumably for this purpose) on the short stretch of footway at plot 14 but it appears that the LEAP area, Sports Common and Orchard and pond areas remain unprotected. • In the same vein, I would suggest some form of boundary treatment to provide ownership is needed at the allotments. Also, on this subject, will sheds be provided/allowed; they can be a target for criminals and a little forethought can prevent a lot of offences. • The LAP is in a rather remote location and if it cannot be relocated, great care should be taken in terms of equipment provision and management etc. to prevent mis-use. The design should promote the ownership and enjoyment of users as well as child safety and should deter antisocial behaviour. • House type 506 has a grand porch design but it does enclose and recess the front door somewhat; I would prefer to see a more open design that affords better surveillance and does not create hiding places. • Plots 82 & 83 only have bedrooms to their front aspect. I would prefer to see at least one active room (kitchen or living room) provided given the location of the dwellings.

3.21 Berkshire Buckinghamshire Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust (BBOWT) : Taking into account both Charlotte’s comments and the letter from the applicants consultants (as posted on the Public Access pages on 1 st May) I would consider the current habitat creation proposed for the site (meadow, ponds and hedgerow planting) are in conformity with the aims of the CTA. Seed mixes should ideally be of local provenance and characteristic of the CTA (for example, I would suggest species characteristic of the NVC MG4 community are used for meadow creation). Consideration might also be given to the creation of a pond complex rather than a single pond, as this is likely to provide greater ecological value. Of course, the more habitat that can be provided, the better, although I understand that there are constraints associated with the size and layout of the site. For the habitat creation to be successful it is important that long term management is secured.

4. Relevant National and Local Policy and Guidance

4.1 Development Plan Policy

Adopted Cherwell Local Plan (Saved Policies) (ACLP) H13: The Category 1 Settlements H18: New dwellings in the countryside C2: Development affecting protected species C4 Creation of new habitats C7: Landscape conservation C8: Sporadic development in the open countryside C28: Layout, design and external appearance of new development C30: Design of new residential development C31: Compatibility of proposals in residential areas C32: Provision of facilities for disabled people R12: Provision of public open space in association with new residential development TR1: Transportation funding

4.2 Other Material Considerations - Policy and Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework

Cherwell Local Plan - Proposed Submission (August 2012) and Focussed Consultation (March 2013) (PSLP)

The Local Plan (March 2013) is out for a second round of public consultation. Although this plan does not have Development Plan status, it can be considered as a material planning consideration. The plan sets out the Council’s strategy for the District to 2031. The policies listed below are considered to be material to this case and are not replicated by saved Development Plan policy: BSC1: District Wide Housing Distribution BSC2: The Effective & Efficient Use of Land - Brownfield land & Housing Density BSC3: Affordable Housing BSC4: Housing Mix

ESD3: Sustainable Construction ESD6: Sustainable Flood Risk Management ESD7: Sustainable Drainage Systems ESD10: Protection & Enhancement of Biodiversity & the Natural Environment ESD11: Conservation Target Areas ESD13: Local Landscape Protection & Enhancement ESD16 The Character of the Built & Historic Environment Policy Villages 1: Village Categorisation – Cat A Ambrosden Policy Villages 2: Distributing Growth Across the Rural Areas – Group 1 Ambrosden Proposals Map Allocation – Conservation Target Area

Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment – Draft Final Report – March 2013 Appendix D - Sites outside Settlements with Future Potential

5. Appraisal

5.1 The key issues for consideration in this application are:

§ Policy principle § Housing need § Visual amenity/landscape impact § Layout and design § Ecology § Flooding § Highway Safety § Planning contributions

The principle

5.2 The site is beyond the built up limits of the category 1 village of Ambrosden and is not an allocated site. The proposed housing scheme, therefore, has to be assessed against Policy H18 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan (ACLP). This limits residential development to agricultural works dwellings and affordable housing. Quite clearly the development fails to comply with this policy.

5.3 Policy Villages 2: Distributing Growth Across the Rural Areas of the Proposed Submission Local Plan (PSLP) (amended in March 2013) places Ambrosden in a group of 5 other villages. Having now taken into account completions and permissions, there is a combined limit of 252 new homes to be built in these settlements during the period 2012-2031 for sites that comprises ten or more dwellings. Not all the villages will necessarily accommodate a site and the precise number of homes to be allocated to an individual village will be set out in the Local Neighbourhoods Development Plan Document in the light of evidence such as the SHLAA.

5.4 The SHLAA identifies 2 sites in Ambrosden, one of which is this site and it is clear that the site ‘contravenes existing policy’. The following is also of note: Although the site is separate from the existing built up area of the village by the

Ploughley Road, it is not a major A road and it is considered that, with the highway improvements/traffic management measures, it may be possible to satisfactorily integrate development with the existing village. Development would need to be restricted to the northern part of the site to avoid flood zones and further investigation of the importance of the grassland would be required. IT may be possible to retain areas of grassland as biodiversity areas. There are a number of public rights of way within the vicinity of the site and higher ground to the south. There is the potential for adverse impact on the wider landscape. However, with careful design and mitigation it may be possible to acceptably limit the impact of development. The extent of the developed area will require detailed consideration.

5.5 The existence of development to the north and west makes the northern part of the site worthy of further consideration. Although separated from the village by the road, integration might be achievable through design. Although there would be some landscape impact, it may be possible to contain development through careful design and landscape mitigation. Further detailed examination of the grassland and the potential for landscape mitigation would be required.

5.6 Although confirmed as available, the whole site as referred to in the SHLAA, is not currently developable but it is considered to be potentially suitable if the Council require additional development outside the built up area of Ambrosden. The site will need careful consideration to address potential constraints if it was to come forward and is likely to be a smaller part of the site. These include ecological impact, flood issues, landscape issues and integration with the village if an appropriate scheme is to be delivered.

5.7 Notwithstanding these policies and supporting evidence more weight has to be attributed to the NPPF given the current status of the development plan and a deficit in the five year land supply if it can be demonstrated that the ACLP is at odds with the goals of the NPPF.

5.8 When adjudicating on a recent appeal for a development, in another Cat 1 village, Chesterton, for 44 houses (15 of which were affordable) the inspector, reiterated guidance in the NPPF when she stated that the ‘proposal should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. It should be permitted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh any benefits, when assessed against the Framework’s policies taken as a whole.’

5.9 In addition to the housing need case being presented, this appeal decision resonates with the current application in that the Chesterton scheme included a new village hall/sports pavilion as an additional benefit of the proposal. The Inspector commented as follows: ‘In addition, in terms of social benefits, the proposal would result in a larger and more mixed village population to help maintain and/or improve facilities and services such as the primary school and local bus services. This, and enhanced sport, recreation and community facilities, would contribute to the village’s vitality.’

5.10 Consideration is given to the aspirations of the local community, as informed by Ambrosden Parish Council who, notwithstanding their holding objection, is at this time noted as being broadly in support of the site for housing. The coalition Government’s commitment to devolve more power to the local level is

set out in the Localism Bill 2011. In a supporting document ‘A plain English guide to the Localism Act’ the DCLG states that:

‘We think that power should be exercised at the lowest practical level - close to the people who are affected by decisions, rather than distant from them. Local authorities can do their job best when they have genuine freedom to respond to what local people want, not what they are told to do by central government.’

Housing Need

5.11 The NPPF includes a presumption in favour of sustainable development and states that where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, planning permission should be granted unless “ any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in [the] Framework taken as a whole ” (para. 14).

5.12 Local Planning Authorities are required to boost significantly the supply of housing by meeting assessed needs and identifying key sites critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period (para’ 47).

5.13 They are expected to “ identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land ” (para’ 47).

5.14 Footnote 11 to paragraph 47 states, “ To be considered deliverable, sites should be available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years and in particular that development of the site is viable. Sites with planning permission should be considered deliverable until permission expires, unless there is clear evidence that schemes will not be implemented within five years, for example they will not be viable, there is no longer a demand for the type of units or sites have long term phasing plans” .

5.15 Para’ 49 states, “ Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites .”

5.16 It is apparent that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five year housing land supply so it is considered that this application should be judged against the identified issues listed in paragraph 5.1 within the context of identifying whether or not any adverse impacts of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits for providing more housing.

Visual Amenity/Landscape Impact

5.17 The site lies beyond the built-up limits of the village in an area of open countryside and is unallocated. The surroundings are not of any particular historic, townscape or landscape sensitivity. Policies C7 and C8 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan seek to protect the landscape, preventing sporadic development that would cause harm to the topography and character. The NPPF also advises that the open countryside should be protected for its own sake.

5.18 The applicant has undertaken a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment which has been considered by the Council’s landscape architect. Landscape character is the physical make up and condition of the landscape itself and the visual amenity is the way in which the site is experienced.

5.19 Noting first the characteristics of the site, it is clearly physically constrained along the road sides but also along the eastern sides as it is effectively controlled by the flood risk areas because beyond the site boundaries the area is at high risk of flooding and not so readily developable. It is suggested, therefore, that the natural features of the site readily form the boundaries. Also, the site is low lying, relatively flat and adjacent to the built up area. The more sensitive landscape viewpoints identified by the SHLAA to the south of the wider site have been excluded from this application site. These characteristics and features of this area of Ambrosden would indicate that this site would potentially have the least harmful effects on the countryside.

5.20 In terms of visual amenity, the landscape officer has identified that the development of this site will have some visual impact and generally the closer to the site the greater this will be. However, the zone of visual influence is relatively restricted due to topography and intervening features. From several viewpoints the impact of the dwellings is low or moderate but the retention and enhancement of the existing boundary hedges is considered important to enhance the proposal and limit any harmful visual effects.

5.21 As there is sufficient space within the site there is scope to remedy the more detailed negative elements identified including the inadequate tree planting and the provision of the LAPs which will assist in improving the general visual amenities of the area. At the present time the layout shows one LEAP and only one LAP where two are required and have been requested. It is expected that a revised layout will show 2 No. LAPs.

Layout and design

5.22 Policies C28 and C30 seek to control all new development to ensure layout, design and external appearance are sympathetic to the character of the area and that they should be compatible with the appearance, character, layout, scale and density of existing dwellings in the vicinity with acceptable standards of amenity and privacy.

5.23 Some layout and design work was undertaken prior to the submission and whilst it could not be concluded that the scheme would be harmful to the area it is considered that it could be improved. Reference is made in particular to the

block of houses which make up the small loop in the north eastern corner. The relationships between the houses (plots 22 to 24) which sit between the link road and public footpath is not favoured as it has produced odd angled properties and exposed gables onto public vantage points. Some back to back distances, at 13m appear ‘tight’ (plot 32) but on further examination the window arrangements would not lead to excessive overlooking. It is felt, however, that some improvement could produce a less contrived layout by, for example, a simple movement of the loop road further north which could be explored which would also assist in improving the public spaces. It is hoped that some further update on this could be provided at the Committee meeting.

5.24 Turning to the house types, of which there are 32 out of a total of 90 dwellings, there is some concern that this is simply too many creating a complicated elevation which lacks cohesion. However, the differences in design are pulled together by some extent by the use of locally influenced materials and a limited colour palette. Also the heights and gable widths (at around 8m for both dimensions) are reasonable and in general conformity with each house type. It is considered, therefore, that these elements produce a more consistent appearance along the principle street scene elevations and key routes. The development will also not be inconsistent with the character of the wider settlement area.

5.25 As the scheme stands, there are elements which are acceptable including the attempts to incorporate the affordable housing in an even spread across the site. However, with some relatively small adjustments, it is considered that the scheme could be vastly improved and we would be seeking to achieve this with a revised layout in time for the Committee meeting. This would also assist in achieving full compliance with the requirements of the County Council with regard to the precise road layout/s, visibility splays, turning circles and parking space allocations and standards.

Ecology

5.26 The Council’s ecology officer is satisfied that the submitted ecological appraisal is sufficient in scope and depth at this stage. The only European Protected Species found on the site is bats and there is every indication that a licence from Natural England is likely to be granted. At present the site is not noted as being of particular interest ecologically but the PSLP has identified the site as a Conservation Target Area but the proposed use of the land does not allow much scope for anything above what has already been suggested. Several conditions have been recommended to ensure enhancements in accordance with policy and BBOWT has confirmed that the current habitat creation proposed for the site are in conformity with the aims of the CTA .

Flooding

5.27 The flood issue has been identified as a constraint to the development of the wider site and also local people have highlighted this issue as being one of particular concern. However, the areas at most flood risk have been excluded from the site boundaries and the extent of the higher risk flood areas is likely to act as a natural restraint to further development out towards the east. This was recommended in the SHLAA document. The Environment Agency (EA)

comment received at the time of writing this report states that there is no objection provided the submitted Flood Risk Assessment measures are implemented and this has been recommended as a condition on the permission. It is further noted that the drainage engineer at the County Council also has no objection further to an appropriate condition relating to sustainable drainage systems.

5.28 The EA note that the applicant has carried out Hydraulic Modelling of the River Ray. The EA has not carried out a detailed review of the modelling but have compared the modelling output with their Flood Map. The EA can see there is a reasonably good correlation between the modelling output and their Flood Map. The EA are also satisfied that, when compared with their Flood Map, the vast majority of the site and all of the built development on the site is within Flood Zone1.

Highway Safety

5.29 At the time of writing this report the Council Councils comments were received and it can be noted that the Highway Authority has no objection to the proposal subject to the recommended amendments being made and required standards being met, a list of recommended planning conditions, informatives and legal agreements can be finalised. It would seem that there are a large number of matters that need to be dealt with on the layout and consideration is currently being given to the requirements suggested relating to the precise road layout/s, visibility splays, turning circles and parking space allocations and standards. It is anticipated that a revised layout will be submitted prior to the Committee meeting addressing each of the points raised.

Planning Contribution

5.30 Discussions were on-going at the time of writing between officers, the applicant and Oxfordshire County Council as to the level of contribution that would be acceptable and there is every expectation that an agreement can be reached. The applicant has agreed in writing to making contributions towards 35% affordable housing, provision of public open space (including sums for future maintenance if appropriate), land for a community building and contributions towards it construction; indoor sports, general transport and access, education (primary, secondary, 6 th form and special needs), libraries, adult learning and strategic waste services.

5.31 It is acknowledged that Thames Valley Police have made a request for contributions towards police infrastructure (set out in full in the Consultations section). This request will form part of the S106 negotiations and it along with all other requests for contributions will have to be scrutinised with regard to compliance with the Community Infrastructure Levi Regulations (CIL). It is therefore requested that Members delegate to Officers the negotiation of the S106 agreement.

Engagement

5.32 With regard to the duty set out in paragraphs 186 and 187 of the Framework, no problems or issues have arisen during the application. It is considered that the duty to be positive and proactive has been discharged through the efficient

and timely determination of the application. Discussions with the applicant, through their agent, have been on-going as pre-application and also throughout the application process.

Conclusion

5.33 Based on the assessment above, it is concluded that whilst the proposed development does not accord with Local Plan policy, the housing need is a sufficient mitigating factor having considered that the site is otherwise acceptable in terms of the impact it will have on the interests of acknowledged importance identified in section 5 of this report. This application is therefore recommended for approval in line with the details below.

6. Recommendation

Approval , subject to:

a) the delegation of the completion of the S106 negotiations (as detailed in those paragraphs relating to ‘Planning Contributions’ above) to officers in consultation with the Chairman; b) the completion of the S106 legal agreement; c) further comments from Oxfordshire County Council; d) acceptable amended layout; e) the following conditions:

Full permission

1. The development to which this permission relates shall be begun not later than the expiration of two year beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason - To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. Except where otherwise stipulated by conditions attached to this permission, the development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the following plans and documents: [To be confirmed]

Reason - For the avoidance of doubt, to ensure that the development is carried out only as approved by the Local Planning Authority, and in accordance with Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

3. Samples of walls – brick, stone, render – dwellings and garages

4. Samples of roof covering – tiles to dwellings and garages

5. Development shall not commence until a drainage strategy detailing any on and/or off site drainage works, has been submitted to and approved by, the local planning authority in consultation with the sewerage undertaker. No discharge of foul or surface water from the site shall be accepted into

the public system until the drainage works referred to in the strategy have been completed.

Reason - The development may lead to sewage flooding; to ensure that sufficient capacity is made available to cope with the new development, in order to avoid adverse environmental impact upon the community and to comply with government guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.

6. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS), undertaken in accordance with BS:5837:2012 and all subsequent amendments and revisions shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, all works on site shall be carried out in accordance with the approved AMS.

Reason – To ensure the continued health of retained trees/hedges and to ensure that they are not adversely affected by the construction works, in the interests of the visual amenity of the area, to ensure the integration of the development into the existing landscape and to comply with Policy C28 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

7. Prior to the commencement of any approved tree works, any operations that present a risk to retained trees, or any operations to facilitate specialised tree planting (eg: tree surgery, trenching operations close to the Root Protection Areas of retained trees or construction of load-bearing structured cell planting pits), the applicant shall give the Local Planning Authority seven days written notice that works are due to commence.

8. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, full details of a scheme of supervision for the arboricultural protection measures, to include the requirements set out in a) to e) below, and which is appropriate for the scale and duration of the development works, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the arboricultural protection measures shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. (a) Written confirmation of the contact details of the project arboriculturalist employed to undertake the supervisory role of relevant arboricultural issues. (b) The relevant persons/contractors to be briefed by the project arboriculturalist on all on-site tree related matters (c) The timing and methodology of scheduled site monitoring visits to be undertaken by the project arboriculturalist. (d) The procedures for notifying and communicating with the Local

Planning Authority when dealing with unforeseen variations to the agreed tree works and arboricultural incidents

(e) Details of appropriate supervision for the installation of load-bearing ‘structural cell’ planting pits and/or associated features such as irrigation systems, root barriers and surface requirements (eg: reduced dig systems, arboresin, tree grills)

9. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, full details of all service trenches, pipe runs or drains and any other excavation, earth movement or mounding required in connection with the development, including the identification and location of all existing and proposed trees, shrubs and hedgerows within influencing distance of such services, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

10. All agreed service trenches, pipe runs, drains or any other excavation to be constructed within the agreed Root Protection Area (RPA) of the tree/trees on the site shall be undertaken in accordance with National Joint Utility Group ‘Guidelines for the Planning, Installation and Maintenance of Utility apparatus in Proximity to Trees - Volume 4 and all subsequent revisions and amendments thereof.

11. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, and notwithstanding the submitted details, full details, locations, specifications and construction methods for all tree pits located within soft landscaped areas, to include specifications for the dimensions of the pit, suitable irrigation and support systems and an appropriate method of mulching, shall

be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and specifications.

Reason - In the interests of the visual amenities of the area, to ensure the creation of a pleasant environment for the development and to comply with Policy C28 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

12. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme for landscaping the site shall include:- (a) details of the proposed tree and shrub planting including their species, number, sizes and positions, together with grass seeded/turfed areas, (b) details of the existing trees and hedgerows to be retained as well as those to be felled, including existing and proposed soil levels at the base of each tree/hedgerow and the minimum distance between the base of the tree and the nearest edge of any excavation, (c) details of the hard surface areas, including pavements, pedestrian areas, reduced-dig areas, crossing points and steps.

13. That prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, full design details of the equipment and layout of the Local Areas of Play (LAP) and the Local Equipped Area of Plan (LEAP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the LAPs and LEAP shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason – In the interests of amenity, to ensure the creation of a pleasant environment for the development with appropriate open space/play space and to comply with Policy R12 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

14. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, including any demolition and any works of site clearance, a full mitigation strategy for bats, which shall include timing of works, and the location, design and timing of any alternative roosts to be provided, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the mitigation works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason - To ensure that the development does not cause harm to any protected species or their habitats in accordance with Policy C2 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

15. No removal of hedgerows, trees or shrubs nor works to, or demolition of buildings or structures that may be used by breeding birds, shall take place between the 1 st March and 31 st August inclusive, unless the Local Planning Authority has confirmed in writing that such works can proceed, based on the submission of a recent survey (no older than one month) that has been undertaken by a competent ecologist to assess the nesting bird activity on site, together with details of measures to protect the nesting bird interest on the site.

16. No more than six months prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, including any demolition and any works of site clearance, an update survey for badgers should be carried out and a report, which should include whether a development licence is required, the location and timing of the provision of any protective fencing around setts/commuting routes and full mitigation strategy should this be required shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

17. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, including any demolition, and any works of site clearance, a method statement for enhancing biodiversity on site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the biodiversity enhancement measures shall be carried out and retained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason -To protect habitats of importance to biodiversity conservation from any loss or damage in accordance with Policy C2 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

18. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a Landscape and Ecology Management Plan (LEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the LEMP shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

19. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, including any demolition and any works of site clearance, a Construction

Environmental Management Statement which shall include details of the measures to be taken to ensure that construction works do not adversely affect retained biodiversity, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved CEMS.

That details (including the siting) of the public art scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details so approved. (RC4A)

Reason:

Condition 1

The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) Ref WB02358, Rev D, Final, dated 05 March 2013 and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA:

• Limiting the surface water run-off generated by the critical storm so that it will not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site and not increase the risk of flooding off-site.

The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority.

Reason

To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface water from the site.

PD open fronts

Travel Plan

Construction Traffic

SUDS

Outline permission (site for community building on grey as shown on Planning Layout dwg No. PL-03 Rev F)

That no development shall be commenced until full details of the layout, scale, appearance and landscaping (hereafter referred to as reserved matters) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason - This permission is in outline only and is granted to comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and Article 4(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure)(England) Order 2010.

That in the case of the reserved matters, application for approval shall be made not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

That the development to which this permission relates shall be begun not later than the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last reserved matters to be approved.

Except where otherwise stipulated by conditions attached to this permission, the development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the site location plan.

That the development shall be used as a community facility only and for no other purpose whatsoever.

Reason:

That any building shall be no higher than two storey (8m).

Reason:

(Condition regarding the phasing of the community facility and the housing to be agreed with the applicant.)

Planning Notes

1. Your attention is drawn to the content of the letter from 2 No. letters from Thames Water both dated 11 April 2013 in respect of the application, a copy of which can be found via the Council’s website www.cherwell-dc.gov.uk

2. Your attention is drawn to the content of the letter from Oxfordshire County Council as Highways Authority dated 2 nd May 2013 in respect of the application, a copy of which can be found via the Council’s website www.cherwell-dc.gov.uk

3. Thames Water recommend the following informative be attached to this planning permission. Thames Water will aim to provide customers with a minimum pressure of 10m head (approx 1 bar) and a flow rate of 9 litres/minute at the point where it leaves Thames Waters pipes. The developer should take account of this minimum pressure in the design of the proposed development.

4. Legal agreement

5. Archaeology

6. Construction Sites

SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR THE GRANT OF PLANNING PERMSSION AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES The Council, as local planning authority, has determined this application with primary regard to the development plan and other material considerations. Although a departure from the development plan, it is considered to be acceptable on its planning merits as the proposal would not cause serious harm to the character or appearance of the countryside area, residential amenity, ecology matters, flood risk or highway safety and adequate provision is made for open space, affordable housing and other essential local infrastructure. Further, the need for the site to be developed to accord with the Council’s strategy for meeting housing delivery requirements, development that results in high quality housing and minimises and mitigates landscape and other impacts has led the Council to consider the proposal acceptable. As such, the proposal is in accordance with government guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies C2, C7, C8, C28 and C30 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters

raised, the Council considers that the application should be approved and planning permission granted subject to appropriate conditions, as set out above, and a legal agreement to secure the essential infrastructure requirements.

STATEMENT OF ENGAGEMENT In accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No 2) Order 2012 and paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), this decision has been taken by the Council having worked with the applicant/agent in a positive and proactive way as set out in the application report.